ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2026
Experts' Willingness to Restore With Direct Composite: Complexity, Cuspal Coverage, and Techniques.
Article in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- EFCD Expert Non-Consensus on Material and Technique Use for Direct Class II Composites With Guidance on Restoring Complex Cavities.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMinimal evidence exists on how class II cavity complexity influences direct restoration provision or if complexifying factors influence the use of techniques and materials. This study aimed to explore: (1) experts' willingness to restore a variety of specific presentations of class II cavities with direct composite restorations; (2) the influence of cavity characteristics on this and the provision of cuspal coverage; and (3) how varying cavity presentations affected technique and material use. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An e-questionnaire developed by international experts was distributed to 67 experts on direct composite restoration. The questionnaire section reported here presented vignettes of varying class II cavities, coded by potential complexifying factors. Respondents were asked if they would restore them with a direct composite. If so, it then asked what specific materials and techniques would be used. Regression analyses were performed.
resultsVignette response rate was 78%. There was a large variation in willingness to restore varying class II cavity presentations with direct composite. This was significantly influenced by the presence of large inter-proximal 'bridging' gaps, root fillings, broad boxes, ≥ 3 cavity surfaces involved and deep sub-gingival margins. When present, these complexifying characteristics affected material and technique use. Those willing to restore more complex cavities were more likely to use more curved circumferential bands and less likely to use a rubber dam, among other factors.
conclusionCavity complexity affects experts' willingness to place direct composite restorations. The willingness to use a variety of techniques was associated with a greater readiness to restore more complex class II cavities with direct composite.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.